There is lots to read about competing ideas. The big bang theory is well documented. If you want to fault it by asking where the bang came from, tell me where your G-d came from.
"..., nothing taught as history in any classroom in the world is fact. And the only difference in the documentation of Jesus death and resurrection and Caesar's death is the outlandish and fantastic claims made by Jesus folowers, which happen to be corroborated by some of his enemies].)"
There is a big difference between the claim that a Roman politician was knifed by pretenders to the throne and the claim that a crucified man rose from the dead. If you wrote that you scrambled eggs this morning, I'd believe you. If you wrote that you had laid eggs this morning I would not.
I know. I have read as many of them as I could my hands on and found them wanting.
The big bang theory is well documented.
That is your best shot? That is assailing? 'In the beginning there was nothing, then it went KABOOM'?
If you want to fault it by asking where the bang came from, tell me where your G-d came from.
I do fault it. The description of the Big Bang does not follow the law of causation. In order to believe the Big Bang I have to make an exception to natural laws which current science does not allow. The universe as defined by physics is one of order where laws are in place constantly. There is no room in physics for "this is a comnstant, but this is the exception to that constant".
Now, in comparing the "natrual" event of the Big Bang, we have the 'comparing apples to oranges issue' applying that to God. Accepting the usual definition for God, we cannot imply that God is a "natural" being or a "natural" event. God is beyond natural, so to say that the law of causation does not apply to a being or event that is beyond the material universe is not necessarily fallacious. To say that God always was is not a violation of material physical laws, due to the claim that God is beyond the scope of those laws. Of course, measuring and classifying this being or event in a scientific or material sense is problematic also. So the only real "proof" or evidence for this beyond natural being is limited to inference. I recognize that a lot of people have difficulty drawing the correct inference. I did for years.
There is a big difference between the claim that a Roman politician was knifed by pretenders to the throne and the claim that a crucified man rose from the dead. If you wrote that you scrambled eggs this morning, I'd believe you. If you wrote that you had laid eggs this morning I would not.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. My next question is usually along the lines of "how much support for a claim, even one completely outlandish and fantastic, is needed until that claim has a measure of verification"? If two people that you trusted told you they saw me laying eggs this morning, would you believe those two? What if it was 5? Or 10? How many trustworthy people would it take for you to believe that claim?
How much inference for a claim, no matter how fantastic that claim, is required before some one finally steps back and says -- "You know, there may be something to this after all."